The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[PureX]

I'm agnostic my definitions are:

Knowledge is correlated data
Wisdom is the application of knowledge
Truth is applicable universally. (Meaning if there are exceptions it is not truth)

Agnosticism is honesty. And this is a good thing. But remember, too, that God remains a strong logical possibility even though we can't know it to be so, or define it if it is so. And that possibility affords us a LOT of help and healing if we should choose to use it. Most humans do choose to use it, and most do gain a lot of benefit from it. You could call this a "universally applicable truth".

 

[PureX]

Ah, I think I get it now. You want a universal moral framework in place before we (humanity) carries on with its pursuit of knowledge.

We would still argue about what a "universal moral framework" is. But we would at least be arguing about the right things. And not just blindly chasing after greater manipulative power and control over the world and each other. Because that path is soon going to bring us to a very dire reckoning.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

We would still argue about what a "universal moral framework" is. But we would at least be arguing about the right things. And not just blindly chasing after greater manipulative power and control over the world and each other. Because that path is soon going to bring us to a very dire reckoning.

Well, in the US as an example, that moral framework is established by the US Constitution and fleshed out by the US Code. We argue about and establish that moral code through the political process.

A truely universal (as in global) moral framework and code would be a much more daunting undertaking. Essentially creating one world governement. Perhaps we will evolve to that point somewhere in the distant future.

 

[Alien826]

I am not suggesrting that we humans stop seeking knowledge. I am suggesting that stop pretending that out pursuit of knowledge is a pursuit of truth, when in fact, it is our pursuit of CONTROL. We seek knowledge as means of manipulating and controlling our own destiny within reality.

What's wrong with that? Serious question.

What is the point of gathering knowledge if we don't do anything with it? And if we hadn't, as a species, sought to control our environment you and I would not here now.

We should apply WISDOM to our pursuit of knowledge, as the overseer of that pursuit. We currently do not do this because we think any and all knowledge is good knowledge; because it further enables our ability to manipulate and control our experience of reality.

Pursue WISDOM, first. Then pursue knowledge as wisdom dictates.

That actually makes sense to me, but as somewhat of a truism. It's better to pursue medical knowledge than to invent more and more lethal weapons of war. Of course it is and making that decision could certainly be called "wise". The problem is that we seem to be poorly constituted to avoid making war on each other, despite the fact that everyone (tends to) agree that it would be good if we did. It would also have been wise to limit our population once we got clever enough to frustrate nature's mechanisms that do just that. Too late, we're programmed to breed and any attempts to limit population growth are greeted with screams of protest.

If you are saying make wisdom a priority while still pursuing knowledge, once again I agree. Throughout history, we have tried to do that, only to repeatedly descend into savagery once again. We can only keep trying.

So, if that's really all you are saying, we could have ended this on the first page.

 

[PureX]

Well, in the US as an example, that moral framework is established by the US Constitution and fleshed out by the US Code. We argue about and establish that moral code through the political process.

A truely universal (as in global) moral framework and code would be a much more daunting undertaking. Essentially creating one world governement. Perhaps we will evolve to that point somewhere in the distant future.

Political systems and Constitutions mean nothing unless the people they presume to govern recognize the need for them and agree to engage and enable them. This is no longer the case for nearly half the U.S. population. They have decided that they prefer selfishness over mutual social responsibility and respect. And they are willing to burn the nation to the ground just to get their own way. Little do they know that what will rise from the ashes of that fire will be 100X worse then what they have now and choose to despise. But greed and selfishness and willful stupidity are a kind of mental and spiritual poison that once ingested is blinding, and very difficult to nullify.

The founders had no idea that the real enemy of their new nation would be capitalism, and not religious oppression or some foreign king's army. So they wrote nary a word about reigning in that monster to keep it from eating everyone and everything, dead and alive. And here we are.

 

[Alien826]

Agnosticism is honesty. And this is a good thing. But remember, too, that God remains a strong logical possibility even though we can't know it to be so, or define it if it is so. And that possibility affords us a LOT of help and healing if we should choose to use it. Most humans do choose to use it, and most do gain a lot of benefit from it. You could call this a "universally applicable truth".

But humans have "chosen" to pursue the concept of God and use it, throughout history. Yet here we are. Always the latest "messiah" proclaims a "new world" and always his followers find a way to oppress others with it. I fear that the problem may be more related to what we are, rather than what we do, and that's a depressing thought.

 

[Dimi95]

If you are saying make wisdom a priority while still pursuing knowledge, once again I agree. Throughout history, we have tried to do that, only to repeatedly descend into savagery once again. We can only keep trying.

This is good.

I can say it like this:
By persuing truth in knowledge we gain Wisdom.
If we don't know what is truth , we cannot know what may or may not be knowledge.

 

[Alien826]

Political systems and Constitutions mean nothing unless the people they presume to govern recognize the need for them and agree to engage and enable them. This is no longer the case for nearly half the U.S. population. They have decided that they prefer selfishness over mutual social responsibility and respect. And they are willing to burn the nation to the ground just to get their own way. Little do they know that what will rise from the ashes of that fire will be 100X worse then what they have now and choose to despise. But greed and selfishness and willful stupidity are a kind of mental and spiritual poison that once ingested is blinding, and very difficult to nullify.

The founders had no idea that the real enemy of their new nation would be capitalism, and not religious oppression or some foreign king's army. So they wrote nary a poop about reigning in that monster to keep it from eating everyone and everything dead and alive.

Yes, yes and yes.

But it's my view that any political system would work if everyone was "good", by which I mean everything that is implied by the "golden rule". A dictatorship would work if the ruler had the well being of everyone as a priority. Capitalism would work if it was seen (and practiced) to be a means to an end not a competition, with riches as the scoring mechanism. Democracy would work if all politicians were honest and all voters informed and rational. And so on.

In short "greed and selfishness and willful stupidity" are not "ingested" but part of what we are. Not all of what we are but enough that it can be triggered from time to time with disastrous consequences.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

We should apply WISDOM to our pursuit of knowledge, as the overseer of that pursuit. We currently do not do this because we think any and all knowledge is good knowledge; because it further enables our ability to manipulate and control our experience of reality.

Pursue WISDOM, first. Then pursue knowledge as wisdom dictates.

Taking this back to the original post then, is it your contention that atheists are either unwilling or are somehow unable to be wise in their pursuit of knowledge? I'm not getting how atheist specifically are universally devoid of wisdom or are incapable of being wise vs non-atheists.

 

[PureX]

What's wrong with that? Serious question.

What is the point of gathering knowledge if we don't do anything with it? And if we hadn't, as a species, sought to control our environment you and I would not here now.


That actually makes sense to me, but as somewhat of a truism. It's better to pursue medical knowledge than to invent more and more lethal weapons of war. Of course it is and making that decision could certainly be called "wise". The problem is that we seem to be poorly constituted to avoid making war on each other, despite the fact that everyone (tends to) agree that it would be good if we did. It would also have been wise to limit our population once we got clever enough to frustrate nature's mechanisms that do just that. Too late, we're programmed to breed and any attempts to limit population growth are greeted with screams of protest.

If you are saying make wisdom a priority while still pursuing knowledge, once again I agree. Throughout history, we have tried to do that, only to repeatedly descend into savagery once again. We can only keep trying.

So, if that's really all you are saying, we could have ended this on the first page.

This is all well and good, but are you really understanding that knowledge does not equate to truth? That more facts don't mean you're 'more correct'? Do you really understand that knowledge is not always a good thing? That some knowledge can be very bad for us, and as such should not be pursued? Because I suspect that very few of the people reading this actually can see this or appreciate the validity of it. And do not consider any of it while engaged in their own intellectual pursuits. Or in their behavior in the world in general. Tomorrow the atheists will still be proclaiming that atheism is "unbelief" and that theism is whatever religion they hate most. And that empirical science is the single greatest pathway to truth, and that that the world would be so much better off if we all just quit believing in any gods.

And so on and so on. I find that human ignorance is incredibly willful, stubborn, and tenacious. Far beyond the ability of reason or logic to overcome. But I guess we can always hope.

 

[bobhikes]

Agnosticism is honesty. And this is a good thing. But remember, too, that God remains a strong logical possibility even though we can't know it to be so, or define it if it is so. And that possibility affords us a LOT of help and healing if we should choose to use it. Most humans do choose to use it, and most do gain a lot of benefit from it. You could call this a "universally applicable truth".

For me you would need to define God and God's definition is as varied as the current number of sentient beings in the universe so for me it does not qualify as truth.

 

[PureX]

But humans have "chosen" to pursue the concept of God and use it, throughout history. Yet here we are. Always the latest "messiah" proclaims a "new world" and always his followers find a way to oppress others with it. I fear that the problem may be more related to what we are, rather than what we do, and that's a depressing thought.

Individual humans use their faith in their own conception of God to be better humans every single day. Billions of them. And it's been going on lie this for eons. These humans never show up in the history books. No one sees them living all around them. But they do. And no one notices when their faith in their God stops them from behaving badly toward someone else. But it happens a billion times a day all across the planet.

That doesn't mean religions can't be abused, can't become abusive, and that people have done all kinds of horrible things hiding behind some religious nonsense or other. Or that any of this should be excused. But let's start our with some honesty and wisdom on the subject, and make some basic distinctions between theism and religion, and between religious beliefs and dogmas and the practice of faith is a personal concept of God. and then let's add to this some humility in that we really have no idea for whom and how this persona faith in God has changed them for the better. What we do know is that many billions of us will and have attested to it.

It's so easy to proclaim religiosity a failure because humans remain imperfect. But come on, how foolish is THAT! Re we really going to be that stupid and biased? And t replace it with what? With 'scientism'? With the idiotic worship of empirical science as the only pathway to truth??? While we denigrate art and philosophy and religion as useless "un-factual" navel-gazing? Really?

And yet this is the kind of sentiment I am seeing all over these threads. Every day.

Just sayin'.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Political systems and Constitutions mean nothing unless the people they presume to govern recognize the need for them and agree to engage and enable them.

Of course.

This is no longer the case for nearly half the U.S. population. They have decided that they prefer selfishness over mutual social responsibility and respect. And they are willing to burn the nation to the ground just to get their own way. Little do they know that what will rise from the ashes of that fire will be 100X worse then what they have now and choose to despise. But greed and selfishness and willful stupidity are a kind of mental and spiritual poison that once ingested is blinding, and very difficult to nullify.

The founders had no idea that the real enemy of their new nation would be capitalism, and not religious oppression or some foreign king's army. So they wrote nary a poop about reigning in that monster to keep it from eating everyone and everything dead and alive.

Mate, you can't just say we need to pursue some undefined nebulous concept of "Wisdom" and have any expectation that folks will "get it" and will act accordingly and appropriately as a result. You have to make specific recommendations and convince a sufficient percentage of the population that your recommendation is worthwhile. That moves politicians, which change laws, which then moves things in the direction you wish to go.

Not seeing how being atheist or non-atheist relates to your list of political greivances, tying this back to the OP.

 

[PureX]

For me you would need to define God and God's definition is as varied as the current number of sentient beings in the universe so for me it does not qualify as truth.

Sure. Because you need to KNOW God before you can accept it as real. Like so many folks here, facts = knowledge = truth. So, no facts, no truth. Right?

And yet, logically, existence needs a transcendent source. And because we do not know this transcendent source, we can envision it any way we want or need to, if we choose to. And by doing that, we find that the idea of this transcendent source can actually be very helpful and healing for us. Which in itself is quite an amazing and rather 'transcendent' phenomena.

Just sayin'.

 

[Koldo]

Why do you think that this 'wisdom' is self-proclaimed?
Can you please give one example.


I would also like to answer this,if you don't mind.
I would need an example, so we can get to the end of it.
Or maybe try if you want.

I am getting the feeling that you are questioning the meaning of what wisdom is and its source , i would ask in the first place , why is that?
So you think that is so , because most people have self-proclaimed Wisdom?
You miss the examples
And we can see if this stands.
I can also claim things , but no use if i cannot explain them.

To put it simple: The idea in the OP is that knowledge/evidence is unnecessary to make true statements, and that wisdom suffices. It is, therefore, possible to make statements out of wisdom (such as 'God exists') without the need to provide evidence (since evidence is within the realm of knowledge) to substantiate them. And wisdom itself, according to @PureX , doesn't even have to be proved. Therefore, any person that self-proclaims to be wise can make true statements without the need to substiante those statements, thus making the act of asking for evidence wholly redundant.

 

[Koldo]

And yet, logically, existence needs a transcendent source.

That's factually incorrect. Existence, logically, doesn't even need a source.

 

[PureX]

Of course.

Mate, you can't just say we need to pursue some undefined nebulous concept of "Wisdom" and have any expectation that folks will "get it" and will act accordingly and appropriately as a result. You have to make specific recommendations and convince a sufficient percentage of the population that your recommendation is worthwhile. That moves politicians, which change laws, which then moves things in the direction you wish to go.

I specifically recommend that we stop lying to ourselves about 'facts = knowledge = truth'. We do not possess the truth of what is, and we never will.

I specifically recommend that we stop seeking to forcibly control the circumstances of our lives and the world around us and instead try responding to them as opportunities to practice the art of wisdom (as opposed to control).

I specifically recommend that we stop obsessing about proving our 'correctness' and instead look for how we can enable the cause of our collective well-being, understanding that none of us are "correct" or "incorrect" by any measure of truth that we possess. And with the idea in mind that our well-being and our collective ("we's") well-being is one and the same well-being.

Not seeing how being atheist or non-atheist relates to your list of political greivances, tying this back to the OP.

Theism works for billions of people because it is based on faith (not solely on facts or knowledge, or even on presumptions of truth). Atheists do not understand this at all. Because their understanding of everything is almost entirely based on the axiom that facts (evidence) = knowledge = truth (true reality). Everything else is dismissed out of hand as "woo". Faith does not factor into any of this. And neither does wisdom. Which is why so many of them have succumbed to the cult-like insanity of 'scientism'.

 

[PureX]

That's factually incorrect. Existence, logically, doesn't even need a source.

Of course it does. It is not logically possible that anything could occur from nothing, or that existence is perpetual when nothing that actually exists, is. Some source (transcendent of both nothingness, and of existence) is logically required to make the existence of 'something' possible from within the abject impossibility of eternal nothingness.

 

[Koldo]

Of course it does. It is not logically possible that anything could occur from nothing,

I agree that it is not logically possible for existence to come out of nothingness.

or that existence is perpetual when nothing that actually exists, is.

There is a 3rd alternative: Existence has a finite past and didn't come out of anything (including nothingness). It is rather uncaused, for it makes no sense to talk about anything preceding existence.

Some source (transcendent of both nothingness, and of existence) is logically required to make the existence of 'something' possible from within the abject impossibility of eternal nothingness.

It is logically impossible for something to cause existence for it would need to exist before existence.

 

[Alien826]

This is all well and good, but are you really understanding that knowledge does not equate to truth?

Knowledge is what we know. Is it always correct? No, but the word implies that the person "knowing" has a strong belief that the knowledge is correct.

That more facts don't mean you're 'more correct'?

All facts are correct, that's what the word means. If you have more facts (about the same thing) then you know more about it.

Do you really understand that knowledge is not always a good thing? That some knowledge can be very bad for us, and as such should not be pursued? Because I suspect that very few of the people reading this actually can see this or appreciate the validity of it. And do not consider any of it while engaged in their own intellectual pursuits. Or in their behavior in the world in general. Tomorrow the atheists will still be proclaiming that atheism is "unbelief" and that theism is whatever religion they hate most. And that empirical science is the single greatest pathway to truth, and that that the world would be so much better off if we all just quit believing in any gods.

I would say that knowledge is neutral morally. Actions are good or bad and they can flow from knowledge. To test this, imagine someone who is completely paralyzed, unable to take any action. He can however know things. His knowledge does nothing so can't be said to be good or bad.

It is tempting to think that for example, if the Einstein had not come up with the idea that matter can be transformed into energy, we would not have atomic weapons. But we wouldn't have nuclear power stations either. I've been trying to think of an example of knowledge that didn't have both good and bad actions resulting from its being known. I've had no luck so far. Can you?

Incidentally, how would you decide if a particular line of pure research (that's discovering knowledge, not technology which is using it) will result in knowledge that will cause bad actions, and then avoid it?

And so on and so on. I find that human ignorance is incredibly willful, stubborn, and tenacious. Far beyond the ability of reason or logic to overcome. But I guess we can always hope.

Agreed, but I'm thinking of people in general, not just atheists.